Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participants were recruited through online postings and classroom visits at a small Canadian university and through online postings on the websites Kijiji and Craigslist in the Greater Toronto Area. To be eligible to participate, both members of the couple had to agree to take part in the study and be over the age of 18. Eligible couples also had to see their partner several times a week and be sexually active. Interested participants who met the eligibility criteria emailed the researchers for more information about the study. After couples agreed to participate, each partner was e-mailed a unique link allowing them to access the online surveys. A total of 101 couples (95 mixed-sex, 6 same-sex) ranging in age from 18 to 53 years (M 26 years, SD 7 years) participated in the study. Nearly half the participants were cohabiting (29%), married (17%), or engaged (3%); the remaining participants were in a committed relationship, but not living together. Participants reported being involved their current relationship between 6 months and 22 years (M 4.45 years, SD 3.76 years) and identified as a diverse variety of ethnic backgrounds; 67% were White, 8% were Asian, 7% were Black, 4% were South Asian, 4% were Latin American, 4% were South East Asian, 1% were Arab/West Asian, and 5% identified as multiethnic or “other.” On the first day of the study, participants completed a 30-min background survey. Then, each day for 21 consecutive days, participants completed a 5- to 10-min daily survey. Participants were asked to begin the study on the same day as their romantic partner and to refrain from discussing their responses with their partner until the completion of the study. Each participant was paid up to $40 CAD (in gift cards) for completing the background and daily surveys; payment was prorated based on the number of daily diaries completed. Participants completed an average of 18 (of 21) daily surveys (M 18.48, SD 5.06, range 1–21). Participants also completed a 3 month follow-up survey.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.899 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".